But the moment may have been short-lived. Today, Croce received two expressions of concern (EOCs) from PNAS for two well-cited papers published over a decade ago, on which Croce — chair of the Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics at The Ohio State University (OSU) — is last author. The two EOCs cite concerns over duplicated bands. What’s more, another journal recently decided to retract one of his papers, citing figures that didn’t represent the results of the experiments.

PNAS chose to issue EOCs, rather than retractions or corrections, because the authors didn’t agree that the bands were duplicated, according to executive editor Diane Sullenberger. She explained how the journal learned of the issues with the two papers:

After the New York Times contacted us about the allegations of image manipulation, we obtained two independent reports that found probable duplication of bands. High-resolution originals were not available because the papers were from 2003 and 2005.

According to the notices, the authors no longer possess the original data.

The notice describes concerns with several figures, which the authors could not address — again, due to a lack of original data. According to Kaoru Sakabe, data integrity manager at American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, which publishes JBC:

Three figures were at issue in this case. As is customary, we requested the original data for these figures. The authors were unable to provide the original data for Fig 1C, so they could not address our concerns. In addition, the other two figures, 2D and 6E, as it turns out, did not accurately represent the experimental conditions. Given the inaccuracies in 2D and 6E, plus the unanswered questions about 1C, the authors decided it would be best to withdraw the paper.

The editors wish to note that Fig. 2a and 2b, β-actin panel, appears to have duplicated bands. The authors note that “because this issue was first raised more than 10 years after publication, the original data are not available to confirm whether an error was made in the figure construction.” However, the authors state that any error in figure construction does not affect their scientific conclusions.

The editors wish to note that Fig. 1B, β-actin panel, appears to have duplicated bands. The authors note that “because this issue was first raised more than 7 years after publication, the original data are not available to confirm whether an error was made in the figure construction.” However, the authors state that any error in figure construction does not affect their scientific conclusions. The authors have provided an image from a replicate experiment completed in 2014 which, the authors state, “confirms the results shown in Figure 1B. This confirmation supports the conclusions in this work.” The image for Fig. 1B and its legend appear below.

And here’s the retraction notice for “POZ-, AT-hook-, and Zinc Finger-containing Protein (PATZ) Interacts with Human Oncogene B Cell Lymphoma 6 (BCL6) and Is Required for Its Negative Autoregulation,” published in 2012 and cited 15 times (once by a previous correction notice):

This article has been withdrawn by the authors. Figs. 2D and 6E did not accurately represent experimental conditions. Additionally, the journal raised concerns with regards to Fig. 1C. The authors were not able to provide the original data for this figure. The authors state that these inaccuracies in figure representation did not affect any of the scientific conclusions of the paper.

Croce is fourth to last author and Fusco is third to last author on the study.

Here’s the 2014 correction notice for the paper, which describes issues with a figure not featured in the retraction:

Western blot images representing PATZ, BCL6, and tubulin in Fig. 6C did not accurately represent the experimental results. Different lanes were erroneously duplicated. Lane 3 of the PATZ panel was duplicated in lane 7; lane 4 of the PATZ panel was duplicated in lanes 5 and 6; lane 1 of the BCL6 panel was duplicated in lane 2; lane 4 of the tubulin panel was duplicated in lane 7; and lane 5 of the tubulin panel was duplicated in lane 6. The authors have provided an image from a replicate experiment. This correction does not affect the interpretation or conclusions of this work.

We contacted Croce and the corresponding authors on the JBC paper—Monica Fedele and Lorenzo Chiariotti, both affiliated with the University of Naples, where Fusco is also affiliated.

Why isn’t image duplication an instant retraction-worthy sin? If the image is unimportant to the conclusions, then it doesn’t need to be there, and duplication should be pointless (there’s no reason to lie). The lie is sufficient in itself to kill the paper (readers can no longer trust your word or your evidence). If it is important (needed to strengthen conclusions, or as evidence for the primary claim), then the duplication affects the paper’s conclusions; as above, since readers can no longer trust your word or your evidence, the paper should be retracted.

I just got a negative decision for our manuscript from Clinical Cancer Research and then Leukemia. I wonder what would happen if we were more creative in data handling and duplicated some data and presented it as something else to explain the full mechanism, like many successful scientist that has a paper in the oven almost every week. There seem to be no problem if duplicated data is detected, just change it with something else from your drawer and stamp it with “This correction does not affect the interpretation or conclusions of this work”.

I did my graduate work at OSU (not in the Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics). My mentor was often frustrated with my ambiguous, “murky” data and unhappy that it wouldn’t get into high impact journals. The one way I could reliably calm him down was to say “At least you know I am not fabricating my data, because if I was, I would fabricate much better data than this.”

This article has been withdrawn by the authors because of errors that occurred in the construction of Figs. 1D, 3C, 5C, and 5H, and supplemental Fig. 1A have been brought to their attention. The authors state that the errors do not affect the conclusions of the article, which have been confirmed in subsequent articles.